Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1887-06-30
They Are Out But Thirteen MINUTES Closing Scenes
Of the Great Trial--Lawyer Ste naY's Plea
Judge BaTstfs Decided Charge
70 tho Jly.

ge0ce OI YesI6Iuay III ahO"hn5 bAh Nn'ii
to-day to prepare his address, Mr. Stckney
stated that hitherto his practice had been
with cases involving property and that this
is his first criminal case. He would not
attempt to deliver an elOqent address, but
to make a clear sensible argumer that viii
appeal TO reasoning men.
The charge, said he, is one of bribery,
not of conspiracy. Mr. Sharp is charged
with corrupting Fullgraff with protter of
money for his vote in the Board Of Alder
men. What evidence has been brought
forward to prove this charge? None. You
are asked to send Sharp to prison and lm-
pose
PRACTICALLY A SENTENCE OF DEATH
upon him because some one corrupted the
Board of Aldermen. Now for thirty years
the Broadway property owners have been
fighting the scheme Of railroad on that
street. In 1884 the Legislature passed
bill authorizing some one to build rail-
road on Broadway. Not until August Both
of that year was there single application
except that of the Surface Company for per
mission to build the road. Here were the
gentlemen of the Seventh avenue road with
plenty of money ready to build the road at
a time of year when it would least incon-
yenience the public. At that time there
was talk of the payment of money, for up
10 that time every road in the city had
been built without the payment to the city
of any sums of money. The men and the
money were there, and the Railroad Com
mittee were bound to entertain this appli-
cation. They had no option under the law
to do anything except Just what they did.
1t may be that some one in or out OF the
board gUt some money that know nothing
about; but this committee had to act.
They made their report and the Board OF
Aldermen voted as they were bound TO.
There was some talk of selling the fran
chise at auction, but the Aldermen had no
right to sell. There is
NOT A PARTICLE OF EVIDENCE
of the payment of money to the Aldermen.
They are said to have met in McIOugh-
Inns house long before any railroad matter
came before them, and that there it was
said that an offer OF $500, 600 had been
made or WAS to be. This is no evidence
that any thing of the kind took place"
Counsel here read from a case brought
against the Erie Railway in 1873 for the
use of money in the Legislature. A. +.
Clarke made the argument, and held that
the money used was eXtOrted as blackmail
and rs q ransom for the road that the
brigands might take their hands from its
brow. That Fullgraff got dollar from
any ore side of the Board of Aldermen
there is not q word of evidence. Sharp,
who, it is claimed, was the head and front
of this road, held just 420 shares, worth
SIC, 900, and that was his whole interest.
The Seventh Avenue Railroad men held
the stock for self-prOtection. How can
Sharp be connected with the alleged $780,
900 corruption fund only because he voted
for an issue of bonds for that amount?
This has been proved by the prosecu-
tiOn's witnesses, and if you cannot con-
demn them how can you find against him.
Is there to be one law for them and another
him? They contend that some improper
use Of that money was made on August ,,
1884. 1t was in the hands of the proper
OuuCSlo vi luC SOlipuhyI ohN vas
NEVER USED BY Mr.. SHARP
in whole or in part, for that or for any
other purpose. He had no more control Of
it than y on had. 1t was voted for proper
uses by the officers of the company, and
that's all the evidence about it. Are any
of them guilty Of bribery and corruption?
Is Jacob Sharp any more guilty? You are
not to try this case on surmises and sus-
picions or imaginings. On the evidence
Mr.. Sharp's connection with the scheme
may be stated thus; For thirty years he
has beer actively interested in moving for
a railroad on Broadway, and in 1894 he
secured the passage OF an act authorizing
it. He then pressed his efforts and was
continually at the Office Of Robinson, Serb
ner and Briggs, and the evidence is that
he never was there for any improper pur-
pose. These gentlemen have been on the
stand, and Col Fellows will not ask you
to discredit it. They say there was no con-
spiracy. Will you find that there was by
inference? Sharp was there, so was Mo
lOney: but there is no evidence to show
that they we're there other than for legal
purpose.
COL. FELLOWS
began his address to the jury after a re-
cess. He said in part: II thought should
have some arguments to overcome, but now
| am deprived of even the joy of combat
The defense has tied my hands SO far as an
attack is concerned, for no man could at
tack defenseleSs adversary who came to
do battle but forgot his arms. Our friends
have relied on the weakness of the prose.
cutiOn. Let us see what We have. We
must prove to you that the Aldermen were
bribed, and by corporation whose
head, heart and hand is defendant at
the bar. Were the Aldermen brlbed?
Were they corrupted? FThe task to prove
it is easy for me. Fullgraff, if a tainted
witness has told his story, and Waite has
told of the rampant corruption, but no
doubtful or tainted evidence through
counsel, and they have conceded that the
Aldermen were thieves"
Mr.. Fellows then vigorously repeiled
the charges made against the public officers
of the custom house.
Mr.. Fellows then traced the case through
the legislature and the general term COM
mission down to the sDecial meeting OF the
Aldermen. The meetings at McLaughlin's
house were also carefully gone over in de-
tail.
After an intermissiOn of five minutes at
the close of Col. Fellows address, Judge
Barrett proceeded to deliver his
CHARGE TO THE JURY.
He began by saying this was the first time
in the history of our Jurisprudence when @
man had been made to face charge ofglV-
ing a bribe. Both to giye and receive
bribes were crimes. The bribe giyer has
an unnatural advantage, general victory
over the party who HONESTLY applies for
legislative action. The result is that pure
and honest men can obtain 10 relief.
The Court read the law on bribery, and
went on to say that the only direct eyl-
dence that money had been given was that
one, DeIaney, had given money. 1t Is
not necessary that the person charged gave
the money with his own hand, or made
the cOrupting agreement in person, or in
other woFds, made the agreement in sd-
vance with the laws of contract. But il
II